Tesla is reporting they will launch a robotaxi service in June in Austin, Texas starting with 10-20 vehicles. This market will resolve "yes" if a Tesla robotaxi is involved in any motor vehicle collision, regardless of fault or severity, within 90 days of launching. It will resolve "no" if no MVC is reported after 90 days of launching. It will resolve 'N/A" if robotaxis fail to launch by the end of the summer, or launch with in-car safety drivers. If remote safety drivers are utilized rather than in-car safety drivers, the market will not be resolved "N/A" and will continue to use the original resolution criteria. Resolution date will be modified based on robotaxi launch date.
Resolution will be based on official reports from Tesla, law enforcement, or credible news sources.
Update 2025-05-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to user questions regarding intentional collisions (e.g., deliberate acts of vandalism or road rage resulting in a collision with a Tesla robotaxi):
The creator has affirmed that the market will resolve based on the occurrence of any motor vehicle collision, as per the original criteria.
No exception will be made if a collision is deemed intentional.
The creator stated that judging intent is considered too perilous, reinforcing that resolution will proceed based on the existing criteria, regardless of fault or the intent behind the collision.
1,000People are also trading
@dreev Accidents during testing don't count. Robotaxis have you actually launch for this market to have any chance to resolve yes.
Thanks for creating this! I see why you wouldn't want to adjudicate the question of fault but I worry that too much probability mass is on accidents like being rear-ended at a red light that there's literally nothing the car can do anything about. I think Waymo has a fair number of those. I was going to suggest a clarification that the car has to be moving, but there are plenty of ways that the car's lack of moving can be exactly what's at fault. Running markets sure is hard work!
@dreev I don't think its worth trying to assign fault when only 10-20 cars are driving. In 90 days they still shouldn't have enough miles that being the victim if someone else has driving is likely.
@WrongoPhD This strikes me as missing the factor of public sentiment. Human drivers seem willing, sometimes, to deliberately crash into entities-on-the-road they particularly dislike—see e.g. the bit on road rage here—and, while the number of Tesla robotaxis will be low, the number of human drivers in Austin who might have grudges against Musk which they could decide to take out via crashing into a Tesla robotaxi is high. (See incidents over the last few months of Tesla vandalism in the context of people being upset about DOGE; see also Austin's population generally favoring the Democratic party, voting-patterns-wise.)
None of which is to imply that it's not also possible that the Tesla robotaxis will crash at disproportionately-high rate due to their own internal issues, of course. But I don't think the external factors are negligible here.
@Tulip Oof, great point. Is it too late to add an exception for non-accidents, ie, intentional collisions?